Giancone v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giancone v. City of New York

29 A.D.2d 756, 287 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 756 (Giancone v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giancone v. City of New York, 29 A.D.2d 756, 287 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 3, 1967, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ cause of action for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, and motion denied. The situation presented is now within the purview of CPLR 3216, and a note of issue having been filed, the only delay which can be considered is that occurring after such filing. As was currently said by this court, “The instant circumstances, judged in the light of legislative policy since the original enactment of CPLR 3216, do not in our opinion warrant the requested dismissal”. (Mandell v. Continental Ins. Co., 29 A D 2d 742.) Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order entered August 3, 1967, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ cause of action for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, and motion denied. The situation presented is now within the purview of CPLR 3216, and a note of issue having been filed, the only delay which can be considered is that occurring after such filing. As was currently said by this court, “The instant circumstances, judged in the light of legislative policy since the original enactment of CPLR 3216, do not in our opinion warrant the requested dismissal”. (Mandell v. Continental Ins. Co., 29 A D 2d 742.) Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 756, 287 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giancone-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack